On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:17:44PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> So this has probably been hashed to death, but just a couple thoughts.
>
> I think realistically one has to look at the entirety of the PARALLEL to
> get any reasonable costing.
>
> Summing the individual components is wrong. Taking
On 06/29/2017 02:51 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> On 28.06.2017 22:18, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>
>> @@ -5300,6 +5300,9 @@ seq_cost (const rtx_insn *seq, bool spee
>> set = single_set (seq);
>> if (set)
>> cost += set_rtx_cost (set, speed);
>> +
On 28.06.2017 22:18, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
@@ -5300,6 +5300,9 @@ seq_cost (const rtx_insn *seq, bool spee
set = single_set (seq);
if (set)
cost += set_rtx_cost (set, speed);
+ else if (INSN_P (seq)
+ && PARALLEL == GET_CODE
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
@@ -5300,6 +5300,9 @@ seq_cost (const rtx_insn *seq, bool spee
set = single_set (seq);
if (set)
cost += set_rtx_cost (set, speed);
+ else if (INSN_P (seq)
+ && PARALLEL == GET_CODE (PATTERN (seq)))
+ cost += insn_rtx_cost
Ping #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg00096.html
On 02.06.2017 09:53, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this small addition improves costs of PARALLELs in
> rtlanal.c:seq_cost(). Up to now, these costs are
> assumed to be 1 which gives gross inexact costs for,
> e.g. divmod
